Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread III

[TiKusDom]

I'm not sure what your reply has to do with my post.

I wasn't referring to a "true" open market. Just the market as it stands in the NBA for the last few decades.

Restrictions to movement must be restrictions on demand for players. If you tell the LA Lakers they can't sign players to the full MLE then there are fewer teams bidding for the services of players. Fewer bidders = lower earning potential.

You have 0 verifiable empirical evidence to substantiate your claim that somehow letting teams keep their players an extra year or two would somehow lower the demand for players. In fact you don't seem to have a strong grasp on economics at all. If there are more players retained = less players in free agency = higher demand and higher value for the very few free agents floating out there.

[Ponchos]

You have 0 verifiable empirical evidence to substantiate your claim that somehow letting teams keep their players an extra year or two would somehow lower the demand for players.

There are no teams that are able to keep their players for an extra year or two. Contracts in the proposed CBA are shorter. I was referring to the MLE. If you limit the number of teams that can bid on a player, you put an artificial limit on demand. Do you disagree?

If there are more players retained = less players in free agency = higher demand and higher value for the very few free agents floating out there.

*You actually mean "less players in free agency = LOWER SUPPLY". Demand is unchanged in your nonsensical scenario.

How exactly are players retained in a way that they are not available on the market? There is no franchise tag, or similar mechanism. You're speaking nonsense here.

I was talking about restrictions on demand, and you responded with non-existent changes to supply.

[EDIT] It's absolutely hilarious that you say I do not have a grasp of economics at the same time as saying "less players in free agency = higher demand". Players are SUPPLY. LOL.

[Ponchos]

So stupid it's sig worthy!

[TiKusDom]

*You actually mean "less players in free agency = LOWER SUPPLY". Demand is unchanged in your nonsensical scenario.

Wow you are dense. When there is less of a commodity the price goes up . When there are less players on the market the the price goes up. You have to try to be this stupid.

And they they are talking about extending rookie contract lengths in the new CBA restricting their movement. I'm not talking about the MLE. You continuously spew nonsense about things you dont comprehend. Read the proposals.

Contrary to media reports over the weekend, the NBA’s proposal would:
• Increase, not reduce, the market for mid-level players. Under the NBA’s proposal, there are now three Mid-Level Exceptions, one more than under the prior CBA: $5 million for Non-Taxpayers, $3 million for Taxpayers, and $2.5 million for Room teams. While the proposal would not permit Taxpayers to use the $5 million Mid-Level, that is not much of a change – since Taxpayers used the Mid-Level to sign only 9 players for $5 million or more during the prior CBA.

You dont even know the fact that the NBA proposed 3 different MLEs and never demanded that the MLE be removed. Inform yourself son.

[Ponchos]

*You actually mean "less players in free agency = LOWER SUPPLY". Demand is unchanged in your nonsensical scenario.

Wow you are dense. When there is less of a commodity the demand goes up . When there are less players on the market the demand goes up and so does the price. You have to try to be this stupid.

Hahahahaha amazing. You don't even realize you're wrong.

"When there is less of a commodity, the DEMAND GOES UP". Hahahahahahahahahah hilarious.

Pick up an economics textbook kid.

Too funny. Truly too funny. I thought you would respond with, "oops, I meant supply goes down" and then launch into more nonsense. But you don't even realize you're sooooo wrong. "Less of a commodity the demand goes up", hahahahah I still can't believe it.

[Ponchos]

Updated my sig again. Amazing. I am begging you please, do not stop. Please continue with your lessons on economics.

[Ponchos]

never demanded that the MLE be removed. Inform yourself son.

Before you argue yourself into a corner, please point out where I said the MLE would be removed?

Hahahaha, I still can't get over your "commodity goes down = demand goes up" amazing, simply unreal. You're embarrassing yourself.

[TiKusDom]

Hahahahaha amazing. You don't even realize you're wrong.

"When there is less of a commodity, the DEMAND GOES UP". Hahahahahahahahahah hilarious.

Pick up an economics textbook kid.

Too funny. Truly too funny. I thought you would respond with, "oops, I meant supply goes down" and then launch into more nonsense. But you don't even realize you're sooooo wrong. "Less of a commodity the demand goes up", hahahahah I still can't believe it.

No actually I was referring to their price not demand. You made the stupid claim that ....

I'm not sure what your reply has to do with my post.

I wasn't referring to a "true" open market. Just the market as it stands in the NBA for the last few decades.

Restrictions to movement must be restrictions on demand for players. If you tell the LA Lakers they can't sign players to the full MLE then there are fewer teams bidding for the services of players. Fewer bidders = lower earning potential.

Wrong . There wont be fewer bidders if you read the CBA proposal


Contrary to media reports over the weekend, the NBA’s proposal would:
• Increase, not reduce, the market for mid-level players. Under the NBA’s proposal, there are now three Mid-Level Exceptions, one more than under the prior CBA: $5 million for Non-Taxpayers, $3 million for Taxpayers, and $2.5 million for Room teams. While the proposal would not permit Taxpayers to use the $5 million Mid-Level, that is not much of a change – since Taxpayers used the Mid-Level to sign only 9 players for $5 million or more during the prior CBA.

Number two I was talking about the movement of players and how if it is restricted like you claim, then their overall value on the market will increase . Their earning potential will not decrease, because essentially your argument that the Lakers can not use an MLE is non existant.

[Ponchos]

No actually I was referring to their price not demand.

Ahahahahahahaha. Now you backtrack.

SIG DON'T LIE BUDDY.

DIRECT QUOTES PROFESSOR.

Hahahaha amazing. "Durrrr I mean I wasn't talkin about demand durrrrrrrrrrrr, I meant price now that I looked stuff up durrrrr".

[TiKusDom]

Restrictions to movement must be restrictions on demand for players. If you tell the LA Lakers they can't sign players to the full MLE then there are fewer teams bidding for the services of players. Fewer bidders = lower earning potential.

Wrong. You stated that there would be fewer teams bidding for services for players. In fact each team will remain eligible to bid for the service of a player depending in what category of the MLE they are eligible to use.

[Ponchos]

Number two I was talking about the movement of players and how if it is restricted like you claim, then their overall value on the market will increase . Their earning potential will not decrease, because essentially your argument that the Lakers can not use an MLE is non existant.

In the previous CBA, a tax team could offer a full MLE every year. In the current proposal, they can offer a lesser MLE, and only once every other year. Look it up.


Hahahahaha "commodity goes down = demand goes up". I still can't believe it.

[TiKusDom]

No actually I was referring to their price not demand.

Ahahahahahahaha. Now you backtrack.

SIG DON'T LIE BUDDY.

DIRECT QUOTES PROFESSOR.

Hahahaha amazing. "Durrrr I mean I wasn't talkin about demand durrrrrrrrrrrr, I meant price now that I looked stuff up durrrrr".

sorry the idiocy of your statements sometimes confuses my mind

[TiKusDom]

In the previous CBA, a tax team could offer a full MLE every year. In the current proposal, they can offer a lesser MLE, and only once every other year. Look it up.


Hahahahaha "commodity goes down = demand goes up". I still can't believe it.

nm i was thinking of the bi-annual

[Ponchos]

Restrictions to movement must be restrictions on demand for players. If you tell the LA Lakers they can't sign players to the full MLE then there are fewer teams bidding for the services of players. Fewer bidders = lower earning potential.

Wrong. You stated that there would be fewer teams bidding for services for players. In fact each team will remain eligible to bid for the service of a player depending in what category of the MLE they are eligible to use.

If one team can bid more money and another team has an artificial restriction on the amount they can bid for that player, that is a restriction on demand.

Again, pick up an economics textbook kid.

Hahaha, still so amazing, I can't get over it that you thought the fact that supply goes down = demand goes up. Sooo funny.

[Ponchos]

No actually I was referring to their price not demand.

Ahahahahahahaha. Now you backtrack.

SIG DON'T LIE BUDDY.

DIRECT QUOTES PROFESSOR.

Hahahaha amazing. "Durrrr I mean I wasn't talkin about demand durrrrrrrrrrrr, I meant price now that I looked stuff up durrrrr".

sorry the idiocy of your statements sometimes confuses my mind

LOL. You're my favorite pet troll.

Please give me more lessons on supply and demand. Or as you call it, demand and demand.

[TiKusDom]

If one team can bid more money and another team has an artificial restriction on the amount they can bid for that player, that is a restriction on demand.

Again, pick up an economics textbook kid.

Hahaha, still so amazing, I can't get over it that you thought the fact that supply goes down = demand goes up. Sooo funny.

nope i meant price. cling on to words if you want doesnt make you any less of an idiot. you stated it lowered their earning potential, i said restricted movement lowered supply of players available and would increase the price.

[Ponchos]

In the previous CBA, a tax team could offer a full MLE every year. In the current proposal, they can offer a lesser MLE, and only once every other year. Look it up.


Hahahahaha "commodity goes down = demand goes up". I still can't believe it.

You can only use the mid level every other year!

nm i was thinking of the bi-annual

YEP I know you were troll.

Nice try at the gotcha moment there Professor Economics.

[Ponchos]

If one team can bid more money and another team has an artificial restriction on the amount they can bid for that player, that is a restriction on demand.

Again, pick up an economics textbook kid.

Hahaha, still so amazing, I can't get over it that you thought the fact that supply goes down = demand goes up. Sooo funny.

nope i meant price. cling on to words if you want doesnt make you any less of an idiot.

You meant price? Even after I pointed out that demand doesn't go up? You REPEATED that when a commodity goes down DEMAND goes up.

Amazing.

You're out of your league here kid. Quit while you're behind.

[TiKusDom]

In the previous CBA, a tax team could offer a full MLE every year. In the current proposal, they can offer a lesser MLE, and only once every other year. Look it up.


Hahahahaha "commodity goes down = demand goes up". I still can't believe it.

Mid-Level Exception for Room Teams: A new Exception is available for teams that use Room under the Salary Cap (and therefore forfeit their Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level and Bi-Annual Exceptions). The exception allows a team using Room to thereafter sign one or more free agents to a contract with a total first year salary up to $2.5M and up to 2 years in length. Exception amount to grow 3% annually.

Wrong again. Teams are not limited to offering it bi annually .

[TiKusDom]

You meant price? Even after I pointed out that demand doesn't go up? You REPEATED that when a commodity goes down DEMAND goes up.

Amazing.

You're out of your league here kid. Quit while you're behind.

you werent even allowed in the race . Nope i was talking about price not demand. you stated player earning potential would be limited, i pointed out the fact that if there is limited movement of players like you stated, their price on the market would go up. I used the wrong wording , Ill admit. I was meaning to write price instead demand popped in my head. Either way your statement that player earning potential would be limited is completely baseless and unsubstantiated . You have 0 idea what you are talking about!